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 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.