I am always going away and thinking, so you can go away and come back whenever! ...and I mean that in the least sarcastic tone possible. Is there a positive way to say, "go away and think!"? because going away and thinking is a good thing.
See reply below in re authorial intent -- I think maybe some of the disconnect there is because of terms. We're using "intent" and maybe what we really mean is "interpretation". The author intended to do X, wrote the text, and then (as means to give us interpretation) says, "this was my intention" as a way to prejudice the interpretation. So perhaps the way I should phrase myself is that I'm disinclined to care about an author's intention (as one who privileges the text and only the text), and I'm even less interested in the author's interpretation except as one among all reader interpretations.
It seems to me that an author/reader communication disconnection is a failure on someone's part, or on both parts, not necessarily just a new view of the story.
I notice you use the word 'failure', which seems rather strong. I've often heard writers (and critics) say that when a text can be interpreted on multiple levels -- sometimes even contradictory -- that this speaks to the strength of the text. Or maybe to its power, that it can be so many things to so many people, instead of a flat, simple story lacking ambiguity or implication. Even just the comments to my last post (referencing Tolkien), there are people willing to argue for their interpretation of the text, as being different (almost radically so) from the cited essayists' critique. I'm not sure I'd call that a failure by any party, and in fact I would say that's a new (or alternate) view of the story, and that such alternate view is just as valid as any other. Not necessarily more valuable, but definitely valid.
But when we get into fanfiction, there are places where it's the content/theme in the fanfiction (especially the pr0n, natch) that will spark the fires... but sometimes, it's the existence of fanfiction as fanfiction that starts the bonfire. In which case, I can't help but note that maybe it's not the alternate story itself, but the sheer fact of reader-interpretation that's seen as what really needs to be yanked out at the roots? A'course, it's possible that what some authors are arguing is: "you could write fanfiction, but only if it has the same interpretation as mine." In which case, the logical end of that is that if all fanfiction followed only the author's interpretation, then you might as well let the author write it, because the fan isn't adding anything.
What I'm poking at, I think, might be that the offensive move (in authorial perspective) isn't the fanfiction itself, it's the thoughts or discussions that lead to the fanfiction. I mean, what would happen if, say, all fanfiction summarily disappeared and were replaced by extensive footnoted meta in which each reader argued for their re/interpretation of events to posit that, say, Harry and Snape could've ended up co-conspirators in a stolen VCR ring? That the now-fiction were presented as non-fiction-arguments for extrapolation, extension, interpretation, and so on?
There'd be no copyright violation, for starters, because it's not retelling, and it's within fair use to quote as part of a critique or review. But if such essays were to effectively argue/posit the exact same interpretations as the dreaded fanfiction, I wonder how authors would view that kind of reader-reaction, compared to the animosity many of them show for fanfiction. More? Less? Different? I don't know.
no subject
Date: 22 Feb 2011 08:02 pm (UTC)See reply below in re authorial intent -- I think maybe some of the disconnect there is because of terms. We're using "intent" and maybe what we really mean is "interpretation". The author intended to do X, wrote the text, and then (as means to give us interpretation) says, "this was my intention" as a way to prejudice the interpretation. So perhaps the way I should phrase myself is that I'm disinclined to care about an author's intention (as one who privileges the text and only the text), and I'm even less interested in the author's interpretation except as one among all reader interpretations.
It seems to me that an author/reader communication disconnection is a failure on someone's part, or on both parts, not necessarily just a new view of the story.
I notice you use the word 'failure', which seems rather strong. I've often heard writers (and critics) say that when a text can be interpreted on multiple levels -- sometimes even contradictory -- that this speaks to the strength of the text. Or maybe to its power, that it can be so many things to so many people, instead of a flat, simple story lacking ambiguity or implication. Even just the comments to my last post (referencing Tolkien), there are people willing to argue for their interpretation of the text, as being different (almost radically so) from the cited essayists' critique. I'm not sure I'd call that a failure by any party, and in fact I would say that's a new (or alternate) view of the story, and that such alternate view is just as valid as any other. Not necessarily more valuable, but definitely valid.
But when we get into fanfiction, there are places where it's the content/theme in the fanfiction (especially the pr0n, natch) that will spark the fires... but sometimes, it's the existence of fanfiction as fanfiction that starts the bonfire. In which case, I can't help but note that maybe it's not the alternate story itself, but the sheer fact of reader-interpretation that's seen as what really needs to be yanked out at the roots? A'course, it's possible that what some authors are arguing is: "you could write fanfiction, but only if it has the same interpretation as mine." In which case, the logical end of that is that if all fanfiction followed only the author's interpretation, then you might as well let the author write it, because the fan isn't adding anything.
What I'm poking at, I think, might be that the offensive move (in authorial perspective) isn't the fanfiction itself, it's the thoughts or discussions that lead to the fanfiction. I mean, what would happen if, say, all fanfiction summarily disappeared and were replaced by extensive footnoted meta in which each reader argued for their re/interpretation of events to posit that, say, Harry and Snape could've ended up co-conspirators in a stolen VCR ring? That the now-fiction were presented as non-fiction-arguments for extrapolation, extension, interpretation, and so on?
There'd be no copyright violation, for starters, because it's not retelling, and it's within fair use to quote as part of a critique or review. But if such essays were to effectively argue/posit the exact same interpretations as the dreaded fanfiction, I wonder how authors would view that kind of reader-reaction, compared to the animosity many of them show for fanfiction. More? Less? Different? I don't know.