Oh good grief.

[prog]

Whether it's Bradbury saying something cranky or Rowling saying something saucy, the author's interpretation of their own story or characters is worth no more than any other reader's take-away.

I mean, it's definitely worth talking about, and if you find yourself agreeing with the author about it, that's cool. But to then go on and say "Aha, this definitively means that Character X had Attribute Y", I say poopie upon you.

If I ever design a yuk-yuk T-shirt (besides the Volity ones) it will be themed around the slogan AUTHORIAL INTENT IS FOR SUCKERS or something.

Comments

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that imply that unauthorized sequels are as valid as authorized ones? Not sure I disagree with that, but am curious as to your view.

[ex-colorwhe.livejournal.com]

i don't think he's talking about sequels. i think he's talking about extra-textual commentary. is that right, prog?

[prog.livejournal.com]

Yeah, as CW replied, I'm talking about interpretive statements the authors make during interviews, or otherwise outside of their body of work.

There's a vast chasm between (oh, I don't know,) "The author says that she wrote this character as gay" and "This character is gay", if nowhere in the actual text is this particular character attribute explicitly revealed.

[prog.livejournal.com]

It occurs to me now that I should have said "The director says that he treated this character as a replicant" etc. for more geek points, but I can barely shut my closet door on the ones I already have, so OK.

[radtea.livejournal.com]

As usual, I am bemused by the ontology of fictional characters. What could "this character is a replicant" possibly mean other than "the author had in mind that this character was a replicant when writing the story"?

And what possible difference does it make if the author says at some point in the story, "He was a replicant"? As opposed to in an interview a hundred years later?

[prog.livejournal.com]

A story is a work that, once finished, stands alone.

The author is a person. They wrote the story, but that's in the past now. They can say whatever they wish about it; so can I.

An author can no more revise a story after releasing it to the world than a parent can change a child's thoughts by declaring them to be so.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that still make sequels problematic if earlier novels are stand-alone, and the sequels change the events in earlier novels?

Let's take a finished book by a single author, with no sequel intended. We'll call it novel 1. Later, the author writes novel 2, which is a sequel to novel 1. Let's say that in novel 1, a character called Fleem appears to die. All readers believes that Fleem is dead. But in novel 2, we find out that Fleem was in fact only swooning/in suspended animation/hiding in Bermuda while his clone was killed/etc. Or perhaps the character who tells us that Fleem is dead was lying. Does that mean that we believe that novels 1 and 2 are in fact set in different universes? Or that we could have debates about novel 1 without acknowledging any information revealed in novel 2? That would seem quite weird.

Why is the unit "the series of novels", rather than "the series of novels and movies", or "the series of novels, movies, short stories and spin-offs," or "the series of novels, movies, short stories, spin-offs and other statements about events and characters that the author chooses to make?" This particular fact about D has already affected the movies.

[radtea.livejournal.com]

I disagree, and have struggled to put my disagreement into words for a sufficiently long time that I've gotten around to remembering that I am breaking my rule about not arguing with people on the 'Net. So I'll stop now, except to say that you've sparked a lot of interesting avenues of inquiry in my mind, and I really appreciate that.

[shibusashirazu.livejournal.com]

The problem with this is that the author creates the world, they would seem to have some authority on its interpretation, if only from the point of view that they knew the world just not every detail had to be mentioned.

Do you read The Hobbit and give the same weight to the later revisions as you would to piece of fan fiction rewriting the riddle scene?

This type of thought that the story can't be revised by the author leads to thinking that Han actually shot first...

A little more seriously, the idea "That a story is a work that, once finished, stands alone" is rather a modern concept that only makes sense in a textual society. I think to some degree this is shame, and something that pre-literary society (or maybe just childhood) had for an advantage; story telling was more fun without someone shouting "That's not what it said on page 247!". Although even children seem to key in pretty quickly when a story is told differently then it had been in the past...

[cnoocy]

I don't agree that completed works only stand alone in textual societies. Once you've gone and seen a performance of a story, that performance stands alone.
As to your first point, it is likely that an author will be better able to argue from the text, as a result of knowing it better. And if they have written based on their extra knowledge that should be easy to do.
And I think your example of Star Wars is a good one. Unauthorized sequels and revisions can be better than the official ones. I think that is more likely in the case of Lucas than the case of Tolkien, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of someone retelling The Hobbit in an interesting way.
You may enjoy this humorous look at this exact issue from before the release of HP book 7: Part 1, Part 2

[jtroutman.livejournal.com]

That is not true. Authors can and sometimes do revise their stories after releasing them. David Gerrold did it.

[prog.livejournal.com]

Gaaah, that is so not what I meant.

I kind of like that everyone except for the people who agree with me disagree with me, but this thread has me kind of peeved and I'll blanket-respond later. Maybe the next time this happens. Fie.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

We can distinguish between interpretive statements about the meaning of the work (which is what the Bradbury thing was all about), and questions about characters and story.

Imagine that Rowling's response to the fan's question were to instead say, "You'll find out in my next short story, due to be published in F&SF next month." And the short story was about D/G. OK, so let's say it was a short-short story. Like a paragraph. And then imagine Rowling read it from the podium. Why should her phrasing of it as an answer to a question rather than a short story matter?

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I was going to say the same thing (but probably less politely). I really think riding the authorial-intent hobbyhorse in this particular situation is just wrong.

[chocorisu.livejournal.com]

I don't really understand what the big deal is. So an author says off-handedly that she wrote a fictional male character as though he were gay? How on earth is that remotely newsworthy? It's not like she actually wrote a chapter where he starts spontaneously nibbling on Harry's earlobe or something, I mean, I can see how that might ruffle a few feathers what with it being a children's book 'n all.

[aspartaimee.livejournal.com]

i am going to go back and re-read them. i bet he exhibits undue influence and pushes a subversive gay agenda on the kids, turning them gay and i missed it the first time around.

[prog.livejournal.com]

It's my understanding that the entire series takes on a wholly different meaning if you replace every instance of "wand" with "wang".

[mrmorse.livejournal.com]

I mostly agree with you, but I think declarations of the author's intent can be useful for discussion. I also think it's entirely reasonable to decide that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. I'd go so far as the conclusion that a sequel by the original author is wrong and is therefore not canon in some cases.

Things get trickier when authors revise their works. If, for example, in the theatrical release of a movie it's unclear whether a character is a replicant, but in the director's cut it is clear that the character is, I don't think the director's claim that the character was always a replicant in the theatrical release necessarily carries weight. But any discussion of the issue then requires at least some justification of why one version of the work is preferred over the other. "Because the director is a moron" may well be sufficient justification.

[mrmorse.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, and I totally think unauthorized sequels are as valid as authorized ones. The only question in my mind is whether the sequel is good.

[aspartaimee.livejournal.com]

this is where it gets fuzzy for me. because at a certain point, the story should end, and authors should write their own, original work otherwise it's kind of cheating. maybe it's the money to be made by continuing the adventures of beloved characters, maybe it's a public demand issue, maybe it's both, but there are a lot of sequels or continuations that shouldn't happen, authorized or not.

so i agree to a certain extent that quality is a big issue, but my first inclination is to be disdainful and not bother reading them. nearly every time i cave and read something, i am disappointed. let the story end and move on.

franchise examples:
the star trek and star wars books
they all have different authors but adhere to strict rules of the franchise universe.

author name examples:
francine pascal, sweet valley high
james patterson's weird YA fiction
carolyn keene, nancy drew
the author is the franchise, and the name is what sells it, but they have different authors who will never be acknowledged for that work.

examples of kids who can't do anything else but capitalize on their parents' thing:
brian herbert
felix francis
christopher tolkein

some people who continue beloved stories - authorized or no
pride and prejudice has a billion
alexandra ripley is authorized by the Mitchell estate, but there are a few gone with the wind prequels and sequels that are not
that beaver who ruined harriet the spy
the little house prequels

examples of authors who do retellings:
gregory macguire
frank beddor
helen fielding

[dictator555.livejournal.com]

I don't get your hard feelings about this. I think a lot of your commenters are saying something like what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway.

It's fiction. If the author doesn't make it believable for the reader, even the original work isn't valid to that reader. So if the author says something outside the work about their intent (whether they state it as fact or not), it's still fiction and the important thing is whether you choose to believe it or not. There is no truth, only what you choose to believe.

So for instance, I choose to read what JK says and mostly to believe her, because it increases my enjoyment and frankly I'm having a little trouble letting go. It sounds like she is, too, and that's pretty understandable. But I could just as easily choose not to believe her, and it wouldn't matter because ultimately it's all fiction.

On the other hand, I completely understand the desire for a stand alone work. It has to do with wanting closure, I suppose. But also wanting some definitive Truth. And if we can't know the Truth about our own world, at least we can know the Truth about this fictional world which has been created. And we want that Truth to be complete and unchangeable. But I think ultimately you still have to decide the truth for yourself because there is no Truth.

I think it's totally valid for you, as an individual, to decide that when you read a work it will be a stand alone work (whatever you consider a work to be, including series). And in that work, what is stated as truth is truth, and no authorial statements outside of the work will be true. But I don't think you can say that for everyone, because people have to decide the truth for themselves.

Please respond to the comments. This is very interesting stuff and the comments were great!

[misuba.livejournal.com]

So what is it that Rowling said? Anyone got a link?

[dougo.livejournal.com]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR2007102000186.html