@Pebblerubble
You think on a level somewhere between Heineken and Guinness. I like it!
2 Likes
I think one reason why you may have gotten the impression that it was tabooāthat is, a reason that people who feel itās irrelevant donāt like it being brought up at allāis that it tends to have a chilling effect on the conversation, especially when someone is explicitly putting it forward as The Answer, with the intention of shutting down debate (not that Iāve really seen that here, but it definitely does happen in many other places). Even when itās not put forward as āthis is the only correct reading, end of,ā people are very, very strongly inclined to weight the creatorās opinion more heavily than anyone elseās, so discussion of other interpretations loses steam.
8 Likes
This is a great encapsulation of one of the issues, and a far better explanation than mine.
5 Likes
I guess thatās where Iām having cognitive dissonance. I havenāt spent much time discussing āliteratureā in official āartā communities. Instead, much of my interest and time were spent among those seen as fandoms and hobby spaces. In many of these areas, the stated canon by a series creator, like Star Wars, or Fallout, or IT, or WestWorld, or etc, etc, is the objective truth, especially when thereās only one author in the chain of custody to prevent conflict (although typically the current IP holder usually dictates Canon, i.e. Star Wars Expanded Universe becoming non-canon Star Wars Legends). This is often referred to as canon.
The idea of treating canon as irrelevant because thatās only authorial intent and it isnāt to be trusted due to the viewersā conclusions having more weight would be seen as utterly wild in these spaces. These spaces have a name for independent conclusions, whether theyāre supported by the material or not, even if theyāre better supported than the official canon and fix multiple plot holes in the process. It doesnāt matter; theyāre referred to as head canon or fan fiction.
There are practical reasons these are seen this way, and the most obvious is simple power and control. It doesnāt matter that my head canon of the end of Return of the Jedi has the second death star blown into billions of tiny bits all over the screen (including the Emperor), those who control the IP control the production of the continuation of that story, including massive chunks of the Death Star safely landing on a terrestial surface or the Emperor respawning or blue alien milk. It doesnāt matter what I think, because itās been rendered patently false by the existing body of work.
These communities even acknowledge the difference between in-universe and practical reasonings with the embrace of the terms Watsonian vs Doylist.
The terms arise from Sherlock Holmes fandom, where the Holmes stories are presented as if they were actually written by Dr. John Watson, the fictional character. By contrast, actual authorship of the Holmesian canon is historically credited to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
A Watsonian perspective tries to interpret the text from the standpoint of the text. This is sometimes called an in-universe perspective.
A Doylist perspective stands outside the text, and is sometimes called a real world perspective. Things that happen in canon happen because of decisions made by the author and inconsistencies are probably authorial error.
These terms exist because Watsonian explanations get to exist outside of our world, or authorial statements, or any other non-canon work. They try to make the universe internally consistent by patching together the various plotholes and vague character motivations by inventing plausible off-screen material, or head-canon. Doylist takes into account that Lucas wanted to sell more toys, so he added in space teddy bear warriors.
Iām not sure how to reconcile these vastly different cultural differences.
3 Likes
I mean, I have a literature degree, but Iām also in fandom, and I donāt know about your corner, but in mine, āwhat exactly counts as canon?ā is a very contentious topic. Is Word of God canon? Is stuff from supplementary materials (like, say, an artbook) canon? In an adaptation, is stuff from the source material that isnāt explicitly mentioned in the adaptation canon? What about when some official materials contradict other official materials, or when different members of a large creative team say different things, or when the same creator says different things at different times? If you believe that something is being very obviously implied in canon but it isnāt explicitly stated, is it still canon? So in my experience, the bright line youāre trying to draw between canon and fanon/headcanons isnāt really so bright even in that context.
And itās interesting that you bring up Star Wars as an example, because it is a universe thatās huge and sprawling and self-contradictory and basically no fan has consumed all the ācanonā material, and while Iām not personally in the fandom, I have witnessed some knock-down-drag-out fights about what is and isnāt Star Wars canon.
But also, youāre conflating āfacts about the world and charactersā with āinterpretation of themes and messageā here, and I donāt think those are the same thing. Thereās a difference between the questions āDoes the Death Star blow up?ā and āIs the prequel trilogy an allegory for the Iraq War?ā and one of those is necessarily a lot more nebulous than the other.
6 Likes
Do you believe Alan Moore when he says (about the graphic novel Watchmen) that Rorschach represents an objectivist perspective because the character is patterned after Mister A (a character created by Steve Ditko as propaganda for objectivism), or do you believe many critics who say Ozymandias represents an objectivist perspective because he resembles the archetypal Ayn Rand protagonist, or do you form some perspective of your own that may or may not involve any of the characters being a stand-in for objectivism?
4 Likes
And if Disney funded another Star Wars film that was a prequel to the prequels that explicitly pointed out circumstances and themes that destroyed your interpretation of the prequel films as an allegory for the Iraq War?
ETA: Nebulous themes can be absolutely destroyed by further content. In fact, theyāre probably more at risk of being upended than stated facts as authors at least try to avoid literally contradicting themselves.
ETA x2: Iām still chewing on your discussion of canon disputes, etc, although that is often why authorial intent is typically more important in these spaces, as, the individual in charge of producing further content in this universe, they ultimately decide whether they are going to honor something as canon. What the fans think and how that argument shakes out seems utterly irrelevant when the IP holder has all the cards. Disney is intentionally vague on what is and is not canon (i.e. Declaring EW as non-canon Legends and then constantly pulling from it anyway) because they want to play both sides of the fence. They are creating the confusion in the first place and they absolutely have the power to end that confusion if they so choose.
ETAx3: And just to be clear, Iām not happy with many of these decisions, but Iām simply acknowledging that I donāt have the however many billions of dollars needed to buy Star Wars from Disney and change it, so I can either cling to my personal understanding in defiance, or accept reality.
1 Like
Never read the graphic novel, so I canāt say.
2 Likes
Ah, ok. Well either character could easily be taken to represent objectivism, but the two characters are completely at odds with each other and thus they probably donāt BOTH represent it.
EDIT: Unless, maybe, Ozymandias represents the way objectivists see themselves, and Rorschach represents how theyāre seen by outsiders. Which might be a fair take, but who knows? Interpretation!
4 Likes
To be clear, itās not my interpretation, itās just one Iāve seen advanced, and I pulled it out of a hat because I havenāt spent very much time thinking about the thematic concerns of Star Wars myself. But anyway, we were originally talking about the creatorās intent, and I donāt see how something made by a completely different creative team can prove anything about the intent behind the earlier films. It can make a cohesive thematic reading of the Star Wars films as a whole impossible, of course, but with the number of cooks in the kitchen in the Star Wars universe and the span of time over which the films have been made, I think that was already impossible, which is exactly why someone trying to discuss themes would zero in on a smaller subset of the films.
(I mean, again, I donāt think authorial intent matters, but you were originally arguing that it mattered, and now you seem to be arguing instead that, in the case of something like Star Wars, itās what the current IP holder believes that itās about that matters? Which is a different thing.)
5 Likes
Hmm, on the one hand I agree that it should of course be fine to put forth various interpretations, and that itās undesirable if conversation is unduly curtailed. (Side remark: Influential critics/reviewers might have a similar chilling effect, not only the author.)
But on the other hand, I think part of the reason that people sometimes put such weight on the authorial intent is simply that they feel it does give them some insight into what an artwork might say, and why the author chose those particular means of expression.
A novel might have an inscrutable-seeming passage that might at first glance be rather incomprehensible or ambiguous in several different ways. If the author says that it was written on drugs and is intended as an evocation of, say, a Goa party night in a utopian setting, then that might be very helpful.
(Although it doesnāt need to be taken to strictly invalidate other interpretations. Itās legitimate to say how the chosen stylistic means etc. can be interpreted this or that way.)
Or if itās a SchlĆ¼sselroman (roman Ć clef), then the author holds the key to whom and what the novel is about.
Of course, facts about the authorās intentions do not imply that the actual effect of the artwork is as intended.
But the latter point is also a reason why intent can be interesting to know, because it can play a role in critical appraisal. Itās not uncommon to at least partly assess a work according to whether it is effective at what the author intended to convey. AFAICT, itās often seen as a particularly fair criticism, because itās internal to the work and does not measure it by an arbitrary external yardstick which might be totally foreign to the author.
If an author wanted to evoke awe and pathos, but the work turned out unintentionally funny due to misused metaphors or other failings, then it seems like an important point of criticism to note that discrepancy.
But this form of assessment presupposes that intent plays a role, and that it is describable, and potentially discernible and accessible in a way which is independent from the effect that the work had.
(One such independent way could indeed be via a statement of the author. After all, itās not uncommon in literary analysis to look at interviews, diary entries, personal letters, and testimony of contemporaries, to find out more about authors and their art.)
3 Likes
Alright, two things.
One, typically an authorās intent matters because they have the power to completely negate any thematic analysis of their work by releasing further content contradicting it. They transfer this power when they sell the IP, ultimately negating the value of their own intent (as seen by George Lucasās completely ignored Sequel treatments) in favor of the interpretation of the current IP holder. Itās dystopian, but itās basically might makes right enforced by copyright law. This also means works based off of works in the public domain donāt have to, and often donāt, respect or even acknowledge authorial intent.
Two, agreed that Star Wars is a convoluted example; the example can be simplified. Letās say a new author writes an IF game about the relationship between two people in a time of great distress. They release this game to IFComp, and it does fairly well, being lauded as a heartfelt romance, laced with various themes of seduction and love. The problem is, the author intended the relationship as platonic and disagrees with this romance interpretation. They release a post-mortem explaining that the relationship was intended to be platonic and the two individuals are not romantically involved. That goes over with mixed results, with some folks choosing their interpretation over the authorās intent. The author, deciding to be more clear, writes a sequel that includes flashbacks to events during and before the first entry. They include explicit details that make it clear that the two individuals are not and never were romantically involved. They release this at the following yearās IFComp.
Is the authorial intent still ignored when interpreting their work? Do you take the first entry in isolation, ignoring the sequel? If you decide that a direct sequel has to be considered as part of a whole when interpreting the original entry, doesnāt this impact how currently sequel-less entries are interpreted? If the author has the power to upend your interpretations and perceived themes with follow-up material, then arenāt we disregarding authorial intent at our own risk?
Like I said earlier, Drew makes a good argument, and I can see the issue with understanding or interpreting the intent itself, even when stated explicitly. This is why Iām having this dissonance, because this is simply not how these things work in practice. The IP holder, typically, but not always, the original creator, can introduce new things that completely recontextualize (for the audience) the original material, even if this ānewā material was conceived along with the original and was only being released later.
1 Like
Biographical criticism hasnāt been a favored lens for literary analysis for quite a while now, actually!
But anyway, itās clear Iām coming at this from a very different angle from most people in this thread, and it doesnāt seem like Iāve been communicating my position especially well, so this discussion has been frustrating for me and Iām going to bow out now.
5 Likes
One, Iām sorry to hear that. I also feel some frustration and I regret causing you to feel similarly. Two, fwiw, Iām approaching these topics in good faith and I donāt seek to stir the pot just to watch it bubble.
5 Likes
I was a bit confused to read this at first, but then I realized that every time Iāve seen this lens used was in public school, which was usually out-of-date for quite a few things anyways, but was also a decade ago.
Huh. Thank you for the realization.
4 Likes
Yeah, I think itās true that it fell out of fashion, partly due to āDeath of the Authorā theories, so maybe writing ānot uncommonā was not enough of a restriction on my part.
(BTW, I would hope that people still do study those documents to get a well-rounded picture of the lives and circumstances of authors, even though they are not taken as ultimate arbiters of truth.)
I donāt know, I think there are various opinions represented here, Drew seems to be clearly of your opinion, I think I tend more towards Pinkunz, though maybe not necessarily in every aspect. I donāt know about the others on the thread.
Iām not trying to contradict you or deny your perspective or experience, just saying that youāre far from alone, I think.
I think you made your points well.
Iād be glad if you continue to take part in the thread, although of course only if you feel like it and feel that itās a good use of your time and energy.
(I can understand that. Indeed, most of my contributions are in the tech-help corner of the forum, because I donāt particularly like to participate in controversial topics.)
2 Likes
I feel like I probably canāt go much further than I already have, but Iāll add a few more things.
I donāt think that a company making decisions about things that they own, be they real estate, grocery stores, or Star Wars films, is an artistic interpretation. When Kathleen Kennedy decided that the Star Wars EU was noncanon, that wasnāt an artistic decision. It was a statement of policy that her employees were expected to follow.
As to whether fans choose to view EU or fan-made content as equally important is up to them: that is literally up to their own interpretation.
This would have no effect on my interpretation of the text. None, zero.
This, on the other hand, might. Donāt all reasonable people reconsider their positions when new information is presented? In all cases, the work is what interests me. The author might not succeed, though, but thatās none of my business.
To clarify, some information is interesting as background. Itās one of a number of factors that are part of what I call the āconditions of production.ā In my series on A Mind Forever Voyaging, I talk about Meretzkyās ambitions, sure, but what I really dive into are his methods. The state of Infocom at the time. The nature of the games business. The significance of doing a press conference at the Library of Congress. And so forth. In a nebulous way, some idea of Meretzkyās intent might hover nearby, but ultimately it doesnāt have anything to do with my interpretation of A Mind Forever Voyaging.
Meretzky, to his credit, never told anyone what to make of the specific, in-play content of the game.
I really donāt think about art this way.
3 Likes
My general understanding is yes, those are all valid avenues of analysis. Very much not my area of expertise but I know that itās possible (and common!) to ignore or even directly contradict authorial intent when doing some kinds of literary analysis, particularly feminist or queer readings.
Relationships are an interesting example as well, since disregarding authorial intent about relationships to write fanfic dates back to OG Star Trek fandom.
3 Likes
So I agree with the sum-total of statements here, so this response is not me making a counter-point. I just realized something kind of amusing.
If we take an IF story or a videogame, where the story pieces seen by the player before the end is directly caused by what the player found during play, then I imagine there being a lot of analysis conflict happening afterward.
There could be elements in the game that were never seen by a particular player, who thought they were thorough, which would add a lot of context to the analysis. I suppose someone would append a new analysis after discovering this new information later? Iām not sure how someone would normally handle that.
Iām specifically thinking about stuff like myhouse.wad, or maybe even horror games like Hello Neighbor, where a lot of the story is hidden in collectible items or easter eggs, which all require closer inspection.
Idk, I donāt have a āsolutionā or suggestion; Iām just wondering if thereās a common protocol for this in the art analysis world?
3 Likes
Doesnāt that make the authorial intent and creatorās authority kind of paradoxical, because that means they are making art in opposition to some of their audienceās ideas. Therefore those people are in effect having some control on the authorās work.
There is nothing wrong about producing art in this way of course, after all many artistic works are created in opposition to some idea, event, mindset, ideology, etc. Rebellion has been in the minds of many artists since time immemorial.
But the result of this kind of interaction is that audience interpretation is never really negated or made irrelevant. In your scenario, we need to be aware of them if we (as audience of art) want to interpret the new work according to the authorās intent. Or we disregard them alongside with authorās intent and interpret the new work, possibly against authorās own wishes about how it should be interpreted, yet again.
2 Likes