deborah | authorial intent

Entry tags:

teaching

authorial intent

It just occurred to me that it would be really easy in this day and age to put together a portfolio of online and offline writings by creators to show students how impossible it is to get at authorial intent as any meaningful way of interpreting the text. (I don't deny the you can get it authorial intent as a meaningful way of interpreting the authors, nor do I deny that some might find it fruitful to analyze the disjunction between stated authorial intent and the text as it stands. I just find neither of these interesting from a literary criticism point of view.)

But these days, creators of texts are so willing to talk about their intentions that would be really easy to let students analyze a series of texts, make their own judgments, and then read stated authorial intent. Example: give them a series of texts whose creators have claimed to have major feminist intent but where the text itself is a mixed bag, such as Buffy, or (far worse) Veronica Mars. Or how about His Dark Materials, together with an essay by Pullman in which he explains how the trilogy brought down the kingdom of god? (/me pets poor Pullman on the head) Or a book by one of the many authors who has shown his or her ass on the Internet over the last few years -- because some of them have written quite thoughtful, kyriarchy-challenging books? Or the Twilight series, along with Stephenie Meyer explaining how feminist her books are, how much they celebrate her female characters' freedom of choice?

I feel like this could potentially be really fruitful, in helping students to understand that while what authors say might be interesting, it's not a useful way of analyzing the text in hand.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, yes, yes, and YES.

Or authors who claim that they meant to make a fantasy hero who's entirely original and not like any human culture, but then hook up their heroine with a handsome, singing, dancing hero who is described in the text as "like many of the handsomest men from the Dells, he looked exactly like Shahrukh Khan".

Tell me that is not actually a line from a published novel.

PLEASE tell me it's not.

(Not that Shahrukh Khan isn't incredibly hawt, BECAUSE HE IS.)

It's not, don't worry.

Actually I kind of want that now... hehe.

Hm? What? I don't know any fantasy authors who are completely obsessed with Shahrukh Khan. LA LA LA LA LA

*runs away*

ZOMG BUT WE NEED BOLLYWOOD VERSIONS OF MY BOOKS!!!

The dance numbers with raptor monsters would be AMAZING.

Speaking of which, Cat and Girl.

We know we are the good guys!

Brilliant. This could be a whole unit in a class actually.

It could be a whole course.

And I- unsurprisingly- would love to take it.

You would be co-TEACHING, doncha know?

We should totes start an ~authorial intent~ blog. You know, in our copious spare time.

YES WE SHOULD.

Yes pleeeeeease.

Honestly, just your exchange with -- was it the Rotund? -- is an awesome example of the distance between stated intent and reader response. (Also it was a thing of beauty to watch as far as its absence of extra-textual fail.)

Yep, Marianne/the Rotund. And yeah, I think that would be a neat example in any such course!

Oh yes! That would be AWESOME. That's exactly what I DO find interesting about authorial intent.

It's also interesting to be teaching a writing seminar, because we talk about authorial intent all the time from a different perspective -- because my students are trying to write, and essentially half the purpose of discussing the readings for the class is to get them to think about these pieces of writing from a WRITERLY point of view. And yeah, that mean's discussing the author's intent in writing the piece -- noting where it went wrong, but also, one hopes, showing them what authors do right in terms of successfully conveying their intentions insofar as that is an achievable goal (because they have to believe that it is!), because I'm trying to teach them useful tools!

But of course I'm trying to get them to write literary-critical essays (well, sort of -- the class is on fairy tales, so it's not quite that simple! But that's still my primary discipline, of course, despite the multiplicity of useful approaches when it comes to discussing fairy tales that we're looking at) -- a discipline in which they have to remember that discussing authorial intent is NOT a window into the True Meaning of the text.

It's a lot for them to juggle, but I LOVE this stuff, so that helps.

Oh good one. I wrote "mean's". I have a complex about making typos in posts and comments where I've revealed myself to be a teacher of writing. *facepalm*

My writing is terrible, though I blame dictation. Excuses FTW. :D

And oh, yeah, totally it's different -- but related! -- while teaching writing. Specifically, there, it's the difference between intent and effect, which is *so* important to get to.

This is a GREAT idea. ^^;

Now if only we had free time!

This is excellent! Yes yes yes. Or like, any of the scifi authors who have written "yay equality" books an then gone all "except for you!" on their blogs. It is my opinion that the "yay equality" books still stand. (But if the author's "except for you!" was heinous enough, I won't pay for them anymore. :P)

Exactly on all points. Sometimes it's almost impossible to reconcile the author of Ender's Game with Orson Scott Card, you know?

Hmm, I'm not so sure I agree.

Authors often do fail in their intent, but does that really make it irrelevant to examine it? I think that an exploration of how and why an author's intended message failed or succeeded might be just as important a part of analysis as the text itself.

I think ignoring the author's intent altogether is ignoring an important amount of information about the text.

Authorial intent is irrelevant as far as a literary analysis of the text goes. If what you're analyzing is the difference between an author's stated intent and the effect, then yes, sure, go ahead and do so. But as a literature professor, I am teaching students to analyze the text in hand, and the author's stated intent is not a part of that text.

The book is a cultural artifact which has information outside of the text: the peritext, the marketing context, the mode of delivery to audience (hugely important in highly mediated children's literature), and yes, the author's stated intent. That package is a valid object of cultural critique. But the text is the object of literary analysis, and all of that extratextual information is not a part of it.

But the text is the object of literary analysis, and all of that extratextual information is not a part of it.

Isn't it, though? Isn't the text a product of the author's mind, and as such almsot impossible to analyse without understanding the author's intent and circumstances? To analyse the purpose of the text, isn't it analysing the purpose of the author?

I would not always understand Kafka, Strindberg, Almqvist, Mann, or Lagerlöf's (sorry for the German/Swedish slant, it's what I've been studying lately) works fully without knowing their intent, and I'd say it's an important part of some of their texts.

In more modern works it's even more relevant, since we're more immediately influenced by them, and often living in the society they describe. Analysing it doesn't mean agreeing with it, surely?

It's not a question of agreeing with the author's intent. There are three problems with authorial intent as a means of analyzing literature.

The first is that it's unknowable. One can attempt to analyze the author, the author's historical period, or some other context by examining all the materials at hand: the text, the author's writings about the text,other historical materials, etc. But a scholar cannot know the author's intent and purpose. The examples I give above are specifically examples chosen to show how an author's stated description of their own intent and purpose changes over time, or in different contexts, or as expressly contradicted by the text or other writings and speeches of the author.

Believing one can actually discern the author's purpose often leads students to believe that anything they see in the text which might be interesting could only possibly be there because the author thought of it. Moreover, it leads them to believe that interpretations which couldn't possibly have been by authorial intent (because of historical context, for example) are automatically invalid. Moreover, it makes it even harder for students to navigate their way out of the perennial confusion between stance of the text, stance of the narrator, and stance of the protagonist; three positions which in many texts are distinct. Throwing some imagined "stance of the author" into that mix merely increases the difficulty.

Secondly, it's no more impossible to analyze the text without authorial intent then it is impossible to analyze the building without knowing architect's intent. The building, like the text, stands on its own.

Moreover, while in the purely pragmatic and Marxist theory senses a text is the product of the author's mind (if you oversimplify the role of editor, publisher, book designer, etc. on the resulting text), the experience of reading it is not. I suppose I find pure textual analysis and reader response theory less mutually exclusive than some critics, and perforce, following critics from Louise Rosenblatt to Stanley Fish, I choose to value a reader's role in creating the meaning and experience of every text.

Finally, I don't teach my students to understand the purpose of the text, but the effect of it. Again, I'm teaching literary analysis, not cultural studies. In that context, what we are analyzing is the text in hand. It's not the text's purpose that matters, but the text itself: how it works interaction with the readers; how the text operates metafictionally in conversation with itself, other texts, and larger culture; etc.

Coming back to the example of the house, what does it matter if the architect's purpose, or even the house's purpose, is that this room be a bedroom? If all people who live in the house believe that this room is a study, then it's a study.

Why do you think it's impossible to know an author's intent? Many authors tells us what it is, sometimes in the very beginning of the story, depending on the work. In some cases, like Cervantes, it changed during the course of writing, but isn't knowing the original intent as well as the one that grew out of the writing both useful when analysing it?

I mean, it's not as if I'm saying that author's intent should take precedence over all other interpretations, or that it's always successful; it can give added insight, but it doesn't necessarily.

Believing one can actually discern the author's purpose often leads students to believe that anything they see in the text which might be interesting could only possibly be there because the author thought of it.

Not in my experience, but I'm a student and not a teacher. A part of our analysis is always about looking at what an author may have done unconsciously.

Moreover, it leads them to believe that interpretations which couldn't possibly have been by authorial intent (because of historical context, for example) are automatically invalid.

I suppose it would depend on the interpretation, but it seems self-evident that a text will have a different meaning if applied on a completely different era and society than that in which it was originally written. Knowing both should only enrich the experience of the text, I would think.

Looking at your examples, I think we probably use a very different model of analysis (and which level do you teach?). It's not so much that we use the author's intent as a tool, but rather another aspect to analyse. Sometimes it isn't discernible, but knowing it can shed light on certain choices in the text.

I don't teach my students to understand the purpose of the text, but the effect of it.

We study both. I suppose I just don't agree with the thought that a text can exist in a vacuum. Many works of fiction has grown out of conflict, experimentation, or the author's particular wish to make a statement. I don't see how ignoring that is useful.

what does it matter if the architect's purpose, or even the house's purpose, is that this room be a bedroom?

It matters if you want your bed to fit in it! Architects put different things in different rooms depending on what they plan them to be used for. Sometimes you disagree with the architects choices, but it's still useful to know where the main phone socket is located.

(Er, I hope I'm not sounding upset or aggressive here; tone is so hard to convey in long meta discussions. I'm just trying to have a nice discussion, that's all!)

It matters if you want your bed to fit in it!

Actually it doesn't. What matters is whether your bed does fit in, not what the architect meant. What matters, in fitting your bed into the room, are the size and shape of the room, and possibly other traits of the room -- all of which can be discerned by examining the room itself.

Deborah teaches literature in a Masters program. Her students are graduate students.

Why do you think it's impossible to know an author's intent? Many authors tells us what it is, sometimes in the very beginning of the story

Oh, it's possible to know what the author has said his or her intent is. Certainly, you can collect all of the various speeches and writings by the author in which the intent is explained. But the author could be lying, could be mistaken, could be telling different stories to different audiences, could be heavily influenced by marketing. Lois Lowry changed her stated intent about what she meant by the end of The Giver, whether the characters live or die, as soon as she wrote a sequel. JK Rowling said, after the Harry Potter series had been completed, that Dumbledore had always been gay. Does either statement of intent add or subtract anything from a reader's own analysis and interpretation? Does Rowling's assertion that Dumbledore is a gay character trump readings of him as straight, or add any force to readings of him as gay? Does Lowry's eventual assertion that Jonas lives add any utility to a discussion of textual support for his living or dying?

No, is the answer. Those discussions might be useful in terms of analyzing the relationships of authors, texts, and the social constraints of marketing and business that surround them, but they don't add any insight to an analysis of the text.

what an author may have done unconsciously

Or what an author may not have done it all, but is in the text anyway. I don't think that Milton, consciously or unconsciously, put a feminist interpretation into Paradise Lost, but that doesn't mean I don't see it there.

which level do you teach?

Graduate students in literature.

it's no more impossible to analyze the text without authorial intent then it is impossible to analyze the building without knowing architect's intent. The building, like the text, stands on its own.

But how would you even begin to analyse a building without understanding its context? The very fact of knowing if it is a church or a house is to be saying something about its creators intent. Right down to the smallest detail of decoration or function, you can only understand it through understanding the historical context that created those traditions and therefore how this individual building deviates from it. That is to know something of intent. For many great buildings we don't even know the architect's name, let alone have a written testimony of what he wanted to achieve, but that doesn't mean his intent doesn't run through every facet of the final construction. To ignore that and try to respond to the building solely as an aesthetic object is not just trivial it is impossible, since the viewer's own aesthetic judgement will itself be formed by many of the same considerations. So if you are going to accept the viewer's or reader's cultural context, why reject the creator's?

But how would you even begin to analyse a building without understanding its context?

Because here is the room where my bed fits, and here is the room where my dining room table looks really beautiful in the sunlight, and here's the room that has a lot of blank wall space for my bookshelves.

When people move into churches, when factories are converted into apartments, when convenience stores are converted into schools, the original purpose of the building often has an effect. When factories are converted into apartments, those apartments usually have very high ceilings and enormous windows.

The creator's intent presumably had influence over why there are enormous windows, but if I'm living in the house, all I care about is how much light those windows let in.

Isn't that just an aesthetic judgement rather than an analysis?

But if you are trying to remove all the cultural context from the text, which includes the authorial intent, then what is the point of analysing it at all? You either end up just analysing the cultural context of the reader, which may have value but it is a rather indirect way to go about it, or you also try to remove the cultural context of the reader and end up with something that is so narrow, so personal to the individual analyst that it can only serve as an exercise in logical thinking. Again, not without value in itself but rather irrelevant as regards actual literature.

A text is not a thing floating in free space, it's not equivalent to pure mathematics, it is entirely imbued with its cultural context. And since the authorial intent is the medium through which that cultural context is transmitted, it is surely of great interest and value to learn as much about it as is possible. Of course you can't ever find the complete 'truth' any more, but that doesn't mean the parts you can find are unimportant.

what is the point of analysing it at all? You either end up just analysing the cultural context of the reader

This implies that you think the point of the text is to analyze cultural context. That may be true if you are a cultural critic, who is using the text to analyze a cultural or aesthetic moment. But in pure literary criticism it is absolutely possible to analyze the text for its own sake. which is not necessarily the same thing as a vacuum!

Analyzing children's literature makes it abundantly clear that a critic needs to think about the implied reader, and about the distance between the critic and the implied and actual readers. But if that's a very Wolfgang Iser way of looking at texts, I would also bring in Stanley Fish, and the reader's interpretive community is hugely important, especially when addressing the different effects texts have at different points in history.

since the authorial intent is the medium through which that cultural context is transmitted

No, the text is the medium through which the cultural context is transmitted. In fact, there are parts of the text conveying cultural context which have nothing to do with the author at all: the marketing history, the book packaging, the book design, etc.

This implies that you think the point of the text is to analyze cultural context.

Nope. That is obviously a different discipline, using a text to understand a culture is a valid study but it's not the study of the literature.

But that doesn't mean the culture isn't relevant to studying the literature.

There is a sequence:

culture -> author -> text -> reader

It seems to me all four parts of that are important to understanding the text, and while you obviously can ignore one or more of them as far as possible if you really want to, to try to do so is to diminish your overall understanding.

Especially since the sequence actually continues:

text -> reader -> culture -> another author -> another text -> another reader -> culture -> etc.

ad infinitum.

So to give a specific example (the metaphor of architecture has limits so perhaps we could try something else) Wise Owl in the Pooh stories. Owl is a character in his own right and can be simplistically interpreted as such, so the analysis could just focus on what impressions the reader has of him and his interactions with the other characters. But an owl is also a symbol, and exactly what that symbol is has varied enormously throughout history. In the classical tradition the owl was a symbol of wisdom. In the middle ages it was a symbol of chaos and fear. But for the the modern reader an owl contains all sorts of facets related to Harry Potter, and conservation, and unfamiliarity with wild birds and lots of other things that simply didn't exist when Milne was writing. So how can it possibly be sensible to ignore the context within which the story was originally written? The modern reader's interpretation is only of interest to the modern reader, if you are to say anything else surely you have to try to understand the cultural context and hence the viewpoint from which Milne was writing?

Sorry to bother you with this pestering. It's just I've often seen people on DW or LJ say that authorial intent is irrelevant and I've never understood why.

Also here via metafandom, and while I have nothing insightful to offer, I just wanted to leave an enthusiastic "YES YES YES." The critical theory class I'm taking right now touches briefly on this (in the form of Roland Barthes' "The Death of the Author"), but I'd love to take an entire course dedicated to the various facets of (not) interpreting a text based on authorial intent.

delayed comment response, but thank you for your feedback. :-)

You know, I would love to take that course as well. I want somebody who's just really skilled in exploring the nuances between what is valuable to talk about regarding the author and what isn't to really help me make that second nature.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

authorial intent

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Re: Here via metafandom

Also here via metafandom

Re: Also here via metafandom

Re: Also here via metafandom

no subject

no subject