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

[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