Is death of an author the greatest lie of literary academia?

>>8678314
Well it makes sense to me

>>8678314
Only if you fall for the pleb misconception of what it means.

Idiots on reddit seem to believe it means analyzing the authors intentions and intellectual mission is now to be avoided which it does not. Rather simply that the author isn't the final authority on the meaning of a text

>>8678314
>being cucked by the author

>>8678314
yes. Authorial intent is literally the only thing that matters. I don't want to hear some ecofeminist's interpretation of Ulysses or TBK and pretend it's on par with what was actually meant

>>8678324
This, desu.

It's become cancerous in its misunderstandings (people think they can interpret literature however they want (especially poetry) and that what the author intended to do is of no consequence).

Death of the author should be a freeing concept, one that says you don't have to just take into account what the author says or thinks about their work, but that there can be more to it than that.

File: bloomybloomy.jpg (103KB, 1200x823px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1200x823px

>>8678314
>>8678512
>>8678324

Everything literary academia has put out since postmodernism has become cancer. Honestly, I don't know anymore. Maybe academia was a mistake.

It's all so tiresome.

So how much weight is given to what the author says about their work? What if they say their work means one thing, but the text itself implies otherwise? Shouldn't the author always have the final say regardless?

I mean, I'm not saying that authorial intent is the only way to interpret a text, but if there's zero analysis or discussion of authorial intent, like, what the fuck is the point?

Even if an author intended his work to be strictly for entertainment purposes and that there's zero reason other than the they want to make as much money as possible telling that particular story, that's a vital thing to know. And that's acknowledging it's authorial intent, in itself.

What I'm saying is, disregarding authorial intent is impossible. Is it not?

>>8678314
yes and no. it is true that you can ignore the author and enjoy the story in your way, it is possible that author himself has no idea what he was talking about so he could not really give you the true interpretation beyond "I was not thinking about it that much". you can enjoy the story without the author but it is your head canon and not a legit interpretation. you can have a head canon accepted by a large group but it has less of a chance of becoming the one truth than linguistic changes being forced by shift in meaning

>>8678543
that just means the author failed. if we allow the author to die, we can see a work as it is.

>>8678543
>but the text itself implies otherwise
then he did not convey himself well, but the intent is not changed

File: CRLvYeaUYAEtT9T.png (482KB, 679x659px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 679x659px

>>8678543
>Shouldn't the author always have the final say regardless?

God no

>>8678314
Why would a person dying be a lie?

>>8678637
retcons are not the same as initial intent and yes she has the right to drive it all into the ground

>>8678654
>retcons are not the same as initial intent

Duh, but the poster specifically referred to "final say"

>>8678434

That's the product of your shitty society. I live in central (socially and politically eastern tbf) Europe and my studies weren't infected by genderpolitics or PC culture.
As young college students we were (and are) socially liberal people who advocate gender/race equality but we never whored ourselves out by subscribing to radical ideas that serve no purpose but to create needless outrage. If someone would've been triggered by Sonia's character CaP for example, she would've been told to fuck off with his Americanized bullshit opinions.

I know French and Dutch students who said the same so I presume it's just you, yanks. If their universities aren't infected, my continent is not lost to fake-liberals.


On topic: The intentions of the author deserve to be studied when possible, but the complete interpretation of the text should never be based on them. How much emphasis you put on the intentions of the author is text-dependent, and your job as an interpreter is to judge how much it matters when discussing a specific text. That's the difference between a "bad" interpretation and a "good" one: Finding the sweet spot.

Literature is more than the text and its writers intentions, it leaves a lot to be studied still.
A poet might intend to say X but his work could easily reflect Y. In this case, you compare the two and note the differences, then go with one and argue in favor of it, avoiding an "appeal to authority", saying shit like "The writer's intentions are clear. End of story." You can go with both X and Y, but you have to explain why, and if your arguments are baseless, you haven't done your job right.

If his work, too, reflects X, then you either accept it and analyze it, or you create your own interpretation, and again, compare and argue.

If your unis are worth anything you won't have people writing wild interpretations of literary works. People tend to be self-conscious of their bullshit at that level. They notice when their arguments are off or baseless. If they don't notice it themselves, their profs will. A good prof. won't have an "anything goes" attitude just because something is up to interpretation.

>>8678434
So what do we do in cases where the author's intent is unknowable to us?

>>8678793
we leave it be. some questions have no answer

>>8678802
what did he mean by this?

>>8678806
what did he mean by this?

>>8678793
An authors intent is never truly knowable, not even to the author himself. This is one of the main concepts behind Death of the Author

>>8678806
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU_DlZZdy0A

>>8678811
its foolish to say that a man can't know himself while presuming to know his intent better than him

Writing is a form of communication. So yes the intent matters, but it isn't everything.
If you tell me that you want to suck my cock, but then when I reject you, you tell me you were only joking, you're still a faggot.

>>8678816
That appears to be a total non sequitor to me.
Artistic intent in my view is largely subconscious and thus not directly accessible.
Its perfectly legitimate to assume individuals can be misled on what their motives and drives aare.

>>8678637
>kid gets abducted and given HIV by a bunch of hairy criminals
Is Rowling redpilled?

File: 1477427401563.jpg (28KB, 360x328px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 360x328px

>>8678654
>she has the right

>>8678833
Apparently what happened to Umbridge was a metaphor for rape too, so maybe she is just into that sort of thing.

>>8678637
Oh my god how I hate this woman

>>8678314
academia is a spectacular institution only concerned with reifying itself and asserting its own relevance