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.

[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.

[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.

[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?