Death of the Author: Is it good or bad?

[Nicholas II of Russia]

What is the the concept of Death of the Author? In short, is a literary theory that argues that the meaning of a text is not determined by the author's intention, but rather by the reader's interpretation.

As time has gone on, however, "death of the author" has commonly been interpreted as "even if the author says x is this way, since it is not explicit in the story, I choose to believe something different, and my interpretation is as valid as the author's." Nowadays, because creators will frequently add information to their franchises and stories online, the extent to which we have to pay attention to their interpretations is even more hotly contested.

A fitting example about this is Allan Moore and his reaction to people reacting to Rorschach.



Moore hates the character because he is supposed to be a fascist vigilante and should not be taken as an example, but he hates the fans more to choosing him to be their favorite character in Watchmen even when it's not supposed to be this way. But at the same time, the character was made in a more sympathetic light that some can't help themselves to be charmed by the character and his ideology.

Another example can be found on JK Rowling with the Harry Potter series. Rowling has retroactively added details to it (e.g., declaring Dumbledore was gay or even mention that he had le gay seggs). Some fans reject her post-publication comments, arguing that the text itself should be the only authority and nothing else.

With all these in mind. How should an author react when a character or an ideology being implemented in the book is misinterpreted in this way? Is it necessarily a good thing? Or just sometimes?

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

It's bad and also retarded. Understanding authorial intent is the single most important aspect of any literary analysis. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

Authors can still be wrong, of course, but that's a separate question.

 

[$5.3 Million Dollars]

The Jungle was the big one I was taught about, being that it was supposed to espouse why people needed communism when to most who read it they became disgusted by the standards in food prep and led to fewer rats and human fingers in the local sausage.

Like most things it can be applied right and it can be applied wrong. If an author objects to the message being taken from a work then the author has a right to correct the record without fear of reprisal. Creators in general should be allowed to do this. If something you make creates an action you didn't intend, you get to state that. The one Fallout co-creator that recently had to state that the focus for the first game wasn't anti-capitalism got shit that he shouldn't have because of it, but it was good that he corrected the record.

 

[The Cheese Aisle]

It's just another lens with which to examine a work, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Arcade Gannon]

Authors don't know what they're talking about. When you ask an author about his work, you're talking with someone who hasn't read the book since it was published, and who likely mixes up details of the final story with other versions that he discarded. His intent when conversing about his work is inevitably different from his intent when writing it, as he has changed in the intervening time. Finally, if the book is any good, the author likely wrote parts of it in a state of inspiration, which elevated the work beyond his own understanding.

 

[TenMilesWide]

Does Ridley Scott still think Deckard was a replicant or has he recanted that one?

 

[Tablet County]

It's neutral. Sometimes authorial intent and "word of god" is important. Sometimes the author is a retard savant who knows how to make spellbinding fiction but doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's just a tool, and like any tool it can be misused. Just look at deconstruction.

 

[Cat tit bingo]

The big problem with being against death of the author is the simple fact that sometime the author sucks. Rorschach is clearly not a role model or much of a good guy but by having him stick to his values, being in a fucked world, surrounded people even worst then him, having a backstory that make his choices understandable and most of all just being a plain interesting character is going to make me like him. If moores goal in watchman was to get me to hate rorschach he failed, cold beans be damned. Moores is a very specific very grouchy example, getting mad at people for liking a immoral compelling character is just retared. I don't care have many times you shout media literacy I like immoral characters like Patrick batemen or Tyler Durden, not because I idolize them but because there fucking entertaining.
Same goes for politics I can enjoy a movie with a different view than me, one because I'm an adult, but more because a moral isn't the definitive factor for something being entertaining. Speaking of politics another example for the author just sucking is starship troopers. Anytime anyone brings it up they mention people not getting the satire, well then Maybe the satire sucked then. No matter how much Paul Verhoeven tries his best to make the point that fascism sucks by putting it in a setting where alien bugs are tossing meteors at earth it makes me think we should kill those bugs even if it requires fascism.
Author intent is important to understand but during a day in age where anyone can just shit out a tweet changing a book 50 years after the fact to more align with whatever is the new popular trend death of the author is needed. You're the one reading the book, you don't need to imagine everyone in Harry Potter shitting there robes as they walk around just because jk said it was Canon. On the other hand don't try to make a critical analysis about Harry Potter being some commentary on organized education turning children into soldiers and cops. You just gotta be reasonable and not retarded.

 

[Paper Machete]

When it comes to personal enjoyment, it's very useful. When it comes to actually examining the work on a more serious level, then no. But I don't really take their word at face value. More so pay attention to who they are as a person, their history, their beliefs. That's the sort of stuff that bleeds into their work and makes obvious their neuroticisms, their obsessions, etc.

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

Lots od authors are absolute faggots ready to introduce mental retardation to virtue signal for that reason alone it is good thing. In addition to that it makes no sense to claim that not X is true within story when X is claimed within book assuming that book is consistent only because author somewhere else claimed that not X is true.

 

[Tablet County]

No matter how much Paul Verhoeven tries his best to make the point that fascism sucks by putting it in a setting where alien bugs are tossing meteors at earth it makes me think we should kill those bugs even if it requires fascism.

I've heard it said (but don't know for sure and don't care) that there's some kind of subtle suggestion that the meteor strikes are actually false flag attacks. Jews Humans did 9/11 Buenos Aires.

 

[Juan But Not Forgotten]

It depends. I disagree that people's should ignore author's intent, it's like putting a toothbrush up one's ass "because you feel like it and don't care what it's creator intended". But when they add woke shit like Matrix being a metaphor for trannies even though it was obviously inspired by Simulation and Simulacra albeit badly and even Bauldriard hated it, that ruins everything.
Also, death of an author is a good way for gay faggots to act smug about something, like with terrible Joker sequel, "oh you just don't get it, it is author's message to the fans of the original", yeah, OK, does it make it good? No, it even contradicts the events of the first part.
With Rorschach I don't know why Moore was surprised. He has a tragic story, badass and has iron principles. Yeah, he is a hypocrite and a psycho, but with a back story like his it is unsurprising.

I've heard it said (but don't know for sure and don't care) that there's some kind of subtle suggestion that the meteor strikes are actually false flag attacks. Jews Humans did 9/11 Buenos Aires.

I mean, in the movie it obviously is. Klendatu is on the opposite side of the galaxy, it would take millions of years for a space rock to travel there. Also, Earth should have orbital defense force, yet it ignored a giant asteroid? I mean, either it is obvious false flag or Paul doesn't know how space works and the script is retarded.
In the book the bugs were highly developed race so it could be possible for them to launch an asteroid. The problem was that Earth had fuck all in terms of diplomacy. Like they couldn't research if it was a deliberate attack or try to negotiate with bugs first, no, they just started a war from the get go, probably killing dozen times more in it than died in Buenos Aires. And that was actually a good downside of militaristic regime even if Heinlein didn't intend it to be. If you start wars over anything how long will you last? But in the movie it is just retarded OH LOOK PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND CAN'T FIGHT FUCKING BUGS.

 

[Tablet County]

I mean, in the movie it obviously is. Klendatu is on the opposite side of the galaxy, it would take millions of years for a space rock to travel there. Also, Earth should have orbital defense force, yet it ignored a giant asteroid? I mean, either it is obvious false flag or Paul doesn't know how space works and the script is retarded.
In the book the bugs were highly developed race so it could be possible for them to launch an asteroid. The problem was that Earth had fuck all in terms of diplomacy. Like they couldn't research if it was a deliberate attack or try to negotiate with bugs first, no, they just started a war from the get go, probably killing dozen times more in it than died in Buenos Aires. And that was actually a good downside of militaristic regime even if Heinlein didn't intend it to be. If you start wars over anything how long will you last? But in the movie it is just retarded OH LOOK PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND CAN'T FIGHT FUCKING BUGS.

Dumb as it is it's still good fun and it's the reason Helldivers exists.
Real shame the suits never made the cut though.

 

[NOXIN]

Death of the author is great because it forces any piece of art to stand on it's own merit, irrespective of the social, cultural, or political context, or whatever the creator was going through at the time. Any creative work that isn't interesting or engaging unless you know the context in which it was created fails as a creative work.

Also, what others have said about artists and creators generally being retarded people.

 

[Daddy's Angry Juice]

While I think author's intent will always be important, both for education/media literacy , and for art appreciation in general. I tend to side more with how the audience chooses to perceive something, than what the author intended. As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" everything we experience in life can only be truly seen through the lens of our own perception, a lot of that molded by our own past experiences, so to say that "You have to view this thing EXACTLY how someone else views it" is a bit nonsensical. It's like saying I enjoyed Robocop wrong because I thought it was just a cool movie about a cyborg cop, rather than seeing it as a commentary on capitalism.
Again, I think authors intent is important, and there is nothing wrong with authors/artists expressing it or even arguing against how people perceive their art, but at the end of the day I'm the one reading/experiencing it and if I want to take your intent into consideration I'll do so, or I'll just say fuck off.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Death of the Author is left wing tactic to subvert (when possible) or destroy media that goes against their world view. It doesn't exist to improve understand of the work, but railroad it into a wrong think or right think lane. It also always detracts from the work's depth and history for virtually no gain in understanding. Under it works like Dune can either be pro trans sand nigger propaganda, or evil fascist manifesto, no in between. If a work meaning changed due to passing of time that is simply change in applicability rather than what the author have intended.

Also I'd argue that the works in the OP don't fit it. Rorschach is liked despite Moore's writing trying to demonize him. Ditto JK rewriting characters as faggots years post HP doesn't change what was written in the original books, especially when the change was blatantly political.

What you can argue is the work meaning considering the author's life, but that is more of a meta look.

 

[Zemblan Physics]

Death of the Author is left wing tactic to subvert (when possible) or destroy media that goes against their world view.

On the other hand, we simultaneously have a generation of left wing college students who are incapable of distinguishing between an author and their work. It's been absolutely depressing to see the discourse around Lolita recently, for example. They are reading it like it's a manual for pedophilia and thus, Nabokov was a pedophile.

You like Nabokov? PEDOPHILE! "Unreliable narrator", you claim? Just a right wing dog whistle, chud.

 

[Pomniman]

The intent is explicitly subversive and homosexual, but there is a nugget of truth in there about some literary critics and the like trying way too hard to dig up a "definitive" explanation to every bit of a text without giving it any room to speak for itself.

On the other hand, we simultaneously have a generation of left wing college students who are incapable of distinguishing between an author and their work. It's been absolutely depressing to see the discourse around Lolita recently, for example. They are reading it like it's a manual for pedophilia and thus, Nabokov was a pedophile.

You like Nabokov? PEDOPHILE! "Unreliable narrator", you claim? Just a right wing dog whistle, chud.

By the same token that the author can "die" the reader can too (by being retarded and insufferable).

 

[Cat tit bingo]

I've heard it said (but don't know for sure and don't care) that there's some kind of subtle suggestion that the meteor strikes are actually false flag attacks. Jews Humans did 9/11 Buenos Aires.

Apperatetly in the commentary track Verhoeven said the bugs did send it, so I guess we're back to the death of the author debate.

I mean, either it is obvious false flag or Paul doesn't know how space works and the script is retarded.

I'd go with the second, I think it's just a side effect of drastically changing the bugs and still needing the inciting incident for the story to work.

 

[Tetra]

I don't expect an author to put as much thought into a tweet or when asked about something in an interview, as such, I don't see the reason to take what an author says seriously outside their media. More over, certain artists may be pressured to retroactively change their work to keep it relevant in a new climate.

If you asked Rowling in 2002 if Dumbledore was gay, she'd likely say no or that she doesn't know. But wishing for harry potter to stay relevant or wanting to please fans she had to throw stuff like that out there. There is also the issue of time. I don't believe artists have a memory of how they felt or how they thought when writing every single line and human memory is fragile so an artist can just remember things wrong.

TL;DR artists are human so the readers view is just as valid as the artists later interpretations.